Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Vodafone Essar Ltd vs. Dispute Resolution Panel (Delhi High Court)

Vodafone Essar Ltd vs. Dispute Resolution Panel (Delhi High Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 27, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (vodafone_DRP.pdf)


DRP must give “cogent and germane reasons” in support of s. 144C directions

The assessee filed a Writ Petition to challenge the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on the ground, inter alia, that the DRP had not given any reasons in support of its directions to the AO. Before the High Court, the DRP conceded that its order “deserved to be quashed”. HELD quashing the DRP’s order:

When a quasi judicial authority (like the DRP) deals with a lis, it is obligatory on its part to ascribe cogent and germane reasons as the same is the heart and soul of the matter. And further, the same also facilitates appreciation when the order is called in question before the superior forum.

See Also: GAP International Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) (DRP must not pass “laconic” orders but must deal with assessee’s objections) & AIA Engineering vs. DRP (Guj HC)

Related Posts:

  • CIT vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd (Gujarat High Court) (Full Bench) By way of culmination of above judicial pronouncements and statutory provisions, the situation that arises is that prior to the introduction of clause(i) to the explanation to section 115JB, as held by the Supreme Court in case of HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd. (supra), the then existing clause (c)…
  • Essar Shipping Limited vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Conceptually, “loan” and “subsidy” are two different concepts. As per the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Indian Edition, the term “loan” has been explained as a thing that is borrowed, especially a sum of money that is expected to be paid back with interest; the action of lending. Black’s Law Dictionary,…
  • CIT vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd (Supreme Court) There is no indication in Rule 8D to the effect that Rule 8D intended to apply retrospectively. Applying the principles of statutory interpretation for interpreting retrospectivity of a fiscal statute and looking into the nature and purpose of subsection (2) and subsection (3) of Section 14A as well as purpose…
  • Vodafone Idea Ltd vs. ACIT (Supreme Court) In the premises, we hold that in respect of Assessment Years ending on 31st March 2017 or before, if a notice was issued in conformity with the requirements stated in sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act, it shall not be necessary to process the refund under subsection (1)…
  • Vodafone India Services Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) When we interpose the aforesaid statutory definition in Section 92C(1), we find that the expression ‘international transaction’ means “an arrangement, understanding or action in concert etc between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or…
  • PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) For the purposes of exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue has to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. In fact, if the PCIT is of the view that the AO…

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court) 

    Receipt for agreeing to refrain from carrying on a competing business under a restrictive covenant is a capital receipt and is not chargeable to tax either as a revenue receipt or as a capital gain as ss. 28(va) and 55(2)(a) … CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court)…
  2. Aatur Holdings (Bombay High Court) 

    (1) Though the assessee company was the defacto owner of the shares, the dividends could not be said to have accrued to it as it was not the dejure owner of the shares. (2) If there is an accounting standard (AS-9), the same has to be accepted in the…
  3. CIT vs. Siemens AG (Bombay High Court) 

    Amounts received towards reimbursement of expenses can, under no circumstances, be regarded as a revenue Receipt and is not chargeable to income-tax;Read more ›
  4. P. C. Jain vs. UOI (Delhi High Court) 

    Disqualification of Ex-Members practicing before CESTAT is constitutional Read more ›
  5. CIT vs. Bonanza Portfolio (Delhi High Court) 

    Since the brokerage payable by the client to the broker was a part of the debt and that debt had been taken into account in computing the income, the conditions of s. 36 (2) (i) read with s. 36 (1) (viii) were satisfied and the bad debt was allowable…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*